1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What is 35mm worth in MegaPixels

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by alexham36, Sep 8, 2005.

  1. 0

    0 Guest

    Ah, but if those WP files were vital to you, you'd have had the foresight to recopy them as the media changed, and found a convertor to make them compatible with word processors that do exist. And you can still find 5.25" drives if you look hard enough - buy/borrow/steal one and copy the files onto flash memory!:D
     
  2. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Indeed. I still have a 5.25" drive (not currently in a PC, though!). And I've been dabbling in digital imaging for just about 15 years, and can still read my files - JPEGs and TIFFs for the most part. It's not as impossible as people think!
     
  3. 0

    0 Guest

    But it does involve a bit more planning than just sticking them in the attic for 50 years or so, as you can do with negs!
     
  4. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    VERY true.
     
  5. ncmoody

    ncmoody Well-Known Member

    But isn't that the way with things generally.

    I would not be surprised to learn that there were more Ford Model T's around that Ford Zyphers. You can get bits for the model T made by a local hobby metal worker (I was going to say Blacksmith, but don't see many of those these days).
    Prints in a box for 50 years OK unless the roof has leaked. Negs then you have to have a scanner so not that easy.
    Particularly if your scanner is not supported by Linux :D
     
  6. Woolliscroft

    Woolliscroft Well-Known Member

    And RAW?
     
  7. farley

    farley Active Member

    I run an obsolete Amstrad 'laptop' - weighs about 65 kilos. It's 'portable' as in 'transport by lorry' and it needs floppy discs to start it. As long as I have it I can read my old 3" discs, and this is the same with RAW: as long as you retain the equipment to read/write, then it's absolutely no problem.
     
  8. georgie

    georgie Well-Known Member

    On this same subject if you imagine all the pics taken by digi-cams over the past few years in stock etc etc does that mean in 2 years time they all become poor quality obsolete pics as the megapixals may be so huge in digi cams in 2 years on and after----or is that a silly question
     
  9. 0

    0 Guest

    You have to have a scanner for negs? Why not just get new prints done?
     
  10. Woolliscroft

    Woolliscroft Well-Known Member

    Exactly. I regularly use 19th century pictures and have just changed the history of a well known archaeological site thanks to the discovery of some negs taken by a school boy volunteer on a dig in 1933. Film can do this. In fact, I can get better pictures off the negs now, thanks to better enlarger lenses and papers, than could be done at the time they were taken. I really don't have much faith that digital will be able to do this, at least not without huge effort on reformating the files and copying onto different storage media. Possibly this can be done, but will it be? I alone have close to 100,000 negs. If they were digital files and needed saving to a new format that would be quite a job. As it is they just need storing properly.
     
  11. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Only been using RAW for 2 years, so that's not so much of an issue. If you're asking how I future-proof them, well in a number of ways - I keep a copy of anything I value as a TIFF, both on DVD and external hard drive, the rest get archived as RAW, but I have a number of different RAW convertors on several machines for some degree of safety.
     
  12. farley

    farley Active Member

    I can't think of any digital medium that hasn't improved over the years. Surely, technology of the future will be so advanced that the RAW files we save today will be enhanced so much that film will be of curiosity value only? Negatives are negatives are negatives, but digital files can be worked on again and again without damage to the original.

    Disclaimer: Reichman didn't tell me to say this!
     
  13. Woolliscroft

    Woolliscroft Well-Known Member

    Er, so can negs.
     
  14. farley

    farley Active Member

    My point was that digital medium can be improved constantly, with technical advances, and that negatives are negatives are negatives and always will be. No improvement, and when they get damaged, you've lost them, whereas with digital, just go to a back-up CD.
     
  15. Blad_the_paler

    Blad_the_paler Well-Known Member

    To get a true continuous tone photographic print you have to print at 300dpi or greater. This immediately limits most digital cameras. If you print at less than this it is not true photo quality. Most high street photo labs scan at 300dpi to keep within this. Simple mathematics can be used to calculate the required scan rate for a 35mm slide or neg. With medium format the advantages are once again enormous. Also, scanning a slide or neg gives you the personality traits that the film incorporates. So, you get the sharpness, grain and colour saturation unique to that particular film. This makes this type of digital work quite unique when compared to a digital camera. Because film is totally analogue in it's approach it's very difficult to say one way or another how it would equate in digital terms. ;)
     
  16. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Sorry, but that just isn't true. A better enlarger lens, better paper, better printing chemistry etc (or scanner if you want the digital route) can always extract more from a negative (within that negs limitations of course) than earlier ones could. A digital file, when you get down to the nitty-gritty is merely a collection of ones and zeroes. No more can be extracted from it than was captured at the time; improved software can perhaps achieve better interpretation of the information, but that is all.

    As for the back-up thing. Any important negs can be and will be duplicated for safety. Either in camera at the time of shooting, or afterwards. No difference there. :)
     
  17. farley

    farley Active Member

    Can you duplicate a negative and still retain a 100% accurate image of the original? No loss at all? And I don't imagine that people with 100's of negatives in their possession have backed up every single one. In 100 years' time, this will be an important oversight, whereas digital is backed up as a matter of course - or should be!
     
  18. Woolliscroft

    Woolliscroft Well-Known Member

    Should be, certainly. Is? not so often I suspect. As for getting more off a digital image in future. Data is data. You can interpolate and enhance, but you can never put back data that isn't there in the first place. Moreover, anything you can do in software to a digital image you can do to a film image via a scanner.

    In normal circumstances, I agree you cannot make lossless copies of film images, although with good equipment and careful processing you can get very close. I tend to duplicate important images in camera, simply by pressing the botton twice. Those really are lossless.
     
  19. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Me neither, which is why I typed important negatives. Film is remarkably resiliant though; I read a while back of some negs being found in the attic of a french cottage (alternating between bakingly hot and very cold), where they had been carelessly left for about 50 years or so (give or take), and were still in good nick. By contrast, if anyone were to leave a CD of digital files on a desk where the sun shone for even a week or two, they'd likely lose all or most their files.
     
  20. ncmoody

    ncmoody Well-Known Member

    Another view:-

    I 'lost' a lot of my negatives when I moved from Germany back to England (in the Army at the time). If they had been digital files I would have had multiple copies and the new owners would not have deprived me of them, they would only have copies.
     

Share This Page